Published by Douglas Messerli, the World Cinema Review features full-length reviews on film from the beginning of the industry to the present day, but the primary focus is on films of intelligence and cinematic quality, with an eye to exposing its readers to the best works in international film history.

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Alfred Hitchcock | Spellbound

Over
the years I have watched Alfred Hitchcock’s 1945 film Spellbound numerous times, and yet—although I have written essays
on most the director’s films—I had not even attempted any comment on this.

Although I have often enjoyed watching
Ingrid Bergman and Gregory Peck romantically entwined in what becomes a kind
psychological-detective tale, I also have long felt it is one of Hitchcock’s
silliest pieces. Spouting populist notions of Freudian theory, Spellbound puts Bergman (as Constance
Petersen) in the uncomfortable position of diagnosing her lover’s every move.
Not only is the poor man apparently suffering from amnesia, he has a guilt
complex for accidentally killing his brother as a child and, having recently
witnessed the murder of Dr. Edwardes on a skiing trip, attempts to impersonate
him, presumably again out of guilt, by showing up as the new head of the
psychiatric clinic where Constance works. Even to describe this plot gives one
the giggles. Poor Bergman has to pretend to believe it all between swoons and
smooches.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the even less
credible ending. It seems the “real” murderer was Dr. Murchison (Leo G. Carroll),
the former head of the clinic Dr. Edwardes was about to replace!

Yes, Hitchcock’s plots (think of Vertigo and North by Northwest) can often be quite complex and even illogical,
but mightn’t he and writers Angus MacPhail and Ben Hecht have assigned their
poor hero just once less complex? And did Hitchcock truly have to use the
kitschy Salvador Dali sets as an aide to interpret John Ballantyne’s (the real
name of Peck’s character) dream? Did he really have to introduce yet another
figure, Constance’s know-it-all, elderly mentor, Dr. Brulov, to help Constance
diagnose her lover-patient?

Hitchcock was obviously greatly
interested in psychological motives, which are at the heart of almost all of
his films. And accordingly, in his movies he often brought in psychiatry to
explain character motivations. In one of his earliest works, The Lodger the director toys with the
madness of his hero, and in several later works, including Rope,The Wrong Man, Vertigo,
Psycho, and most notably, Marnie,
the Hitchcalls in the psychiatrists
themselves—although often too late and not always with good results. But only Marnie—again, I am convinced, a failed
film—explores psychological analysis to the extent of Spellbound.

Watching this film again the other
morning, I wondered why I had even bothered to see this movie more than once.
And yet, despite its labyrinthine plot and hooky images of opening doors, along
with sled tracks in the snow which show up on clothing, bedspreads, and even a
piece of linen on which Constance traces the shape of a proposed swimming pool
with the tines of a fork (events which send Peck into an immediate trance and,
inexplicably, abusive outbursts), Spellbound
remains somewhat spellbinding, full of intense moments and lush romantic
intervals—evidence, perhaps, of Bergman’s and Peck’s real off-screen sexual relationship
during the shooting.

This time around, moreover, I finally
realized that, although Hitchcock is somewhat serious in his all of this
psychobabble, he is also quite clearly mocking it—perhaps in reaction to
producer David Selznick’s own exultation of his personal experiences with
psychoanalysis conducted Dr. May Romm, who is credited as an advisor to the
film. Somewhat like another 1940s work, Marianne Hauser’s Dark Dominion (1947), the director of Spellbound and his figures on one level are utterly serious about
their schoolteacher-like dream analyses and layered observations of behavior,
while also testing and teasing us about our personal expectations and
evaluations of the new “scientific” field.

Early on in the movie, the lecherous fellow
psychiatrist, Doctor Fleurot (John Emery) makes fun of Constance and his own
profession, suggesting that his beautiful colleague is using her career as a
shield behind which to hide from any emotional involvement. Even the clinic’s
head, Murchison, realizes that his young employee needs more time,
metaphorically speaking, “in the field.” And once Constance meets the
fraudulent Dr. Edwardes, we see her desperately trying to fend off her sudden
infatuation with the newcomer with medical doublespeak.

He, it turns out, is also a doctor—but of
another kind, a medical doctor, who, despite his mental illness, can equally
analyze the body and its maladies. And only he, given half a chance, can open
Constance up to human contact. But, obviously, she must first nurse him to
health before he can cure here of her “school-marm” tendencies. Even after she
has fallen in love and in a mad rush away from her own profession, has chased
John to New York, the hotel dick still mistakes her for a schoolteacher. AndBallantyne/Edwardes
calls her that again when she immediately begins to badger him to recall his
past.

If psychiatry, as she and others keep
insisting, can heal the patient, it can just as easily lead to further
misreadings of human behavior and put the victim into further harm. A patient
in the clinic attempts to kill himself. And the more Constance and her elderly
professor (Michael Chekov) badger John with their probing questions, the sicker
he seems to become, sleepwalking with a razor in his hand, and falling again
and again into faints (in accompaniment with Miklós Rózsa’s theremin-inspired
score) in which he behaves more like a drugged-out zombie than the healthy
newlywed he and Constance are pretending to be.

His revelation of his dream is so
ridiculously prolix (with card games hinting at the name of the New York dining
club, 21, and a hovering bird-like figure pointing to the ski lodge’s location
in Gabriel Valley) that Dali’s corny curtains of eyes, severed by over-sized
scissors, along with his sculptures of melted clocks and wheels seem right at
home in the over-the-top presentation of what a madman’s dream might look like.
The actual scene was reportedly 20 minutes long, of which we see only about two
minutes. It would be fascinating, maybe even frightening, to see the original
shoot. As it is, the short scene, nonetheless, is the campiest moment in all of
the great master’s films.

Even when John is finally cured, his
layered secrets all spilled, psychiatry cannot, so Hitchcock posits, save him,
as he is arrested and tried for murder. But even then the analysis doesn’t end.

Constance must still save her man and does
so more as a detective than a psychiatrist—running with an accidentally dropped
remark by Murchison that he had slightly known Edwardes—as she, confronting the
reinstated clinic leader, determines that he was the man who shot the “real”
Edwardes. After all, had he truly met his “replacement,” why would he pretend
not to recognize Edwardes’ imposter when he joined the clinic staff? In short,
we realize, as he puts a bullet through his head, the chief psychiatrist cannot
even cure himself. So much for the wonders of Freudian thinking!

The movie ends with the couple’s actual
marriage, putting them in a position, finally, where Ballantyne can cure
Constance by allowing her to be the beautiful and sensual woman she was hiding
from herself. No further analysis necessary!